Part of the reason for that "lesser evil" we seem willing to accept as inevitable stems from population growth. It's obvious how we've had to tame some aspects of our recreational and other freedoms as more conflicts occur with limited space and resources. It's clearly an inevitable course of events throughout history. But it's that, or eventual war and repression to curb population or deal with the conflicts. Not a pretty alternative. I know libertarians aren't for anarchy either.
I think this inverse correlation of freedom with population is instinctively felt and provides extra incentive for the supporters of abortion and excessive social spending and environmental regulation to try to counterbalance it. Freedom for the city rich by restricting/reducing/buying off the city poor. Freeing our conscience about the environment we leave behind by compelling the future to live by standards that we didn't. Freedom from the future generation's demands by elimination of it before it has a chance to burden us. The thought seems to be to try to preserve freedom for ourselves through the elimination of the freedoms of the next generation.
There's a buzzword for this whole rationale: "Sustainability".
Kind of the big government Democrat mantra these days.
Since the population isn't growing everywhere, it's ridiculous for the gov't to act as if it were, which the federal application of one-size-fits-all law does. We can accept inevitable losses of liberties we used to enjoy toward prioritizing the remainder, but they should be losses we can feel and choose ourselves, or at least face those who chose them for us.
I hope Romney and Ryan can tear down much of the agendas of those trying to suit their own oversized (or in some cases undersized) ambitions. It's not just the laws now, it's the people in place making the regulations, so it's good that Romney likes to fire people. That was not such a bad gaffe. I'd like to see it happen more often.
At least we can count on technology to increase our freedoms somewhat, even when the progression of our legal system seems to be making parts of the Constitution meaningless in more and more situations. Thankfully, the positive correlation of technology to freedom helps balance out the loss of freedom brought by increased population - at least where the technology itself is legal and voluntary. For us to put capital now into that technology is thankfully a gift we give to preserve our children's freedom, as well as our future selves if we balance the risk right.
So why do Dem's condemn free market capitalism?
Makes no sense. Instead, they want to take the capital that was voluntary and risk-balanced and reward their own idea of technological promise... and their like-minded friends. So we see the result of that with boondoggles and cronyism, and a few successes that could have flourished on their own. It becomes worse when actual promise turns to compelled, excessively taxed, or subsidized "success". Then we lose our ability to individually prioritize, which is just another loss of liberty - this time from the side of technology. We lose both ways with this approach.
Now if we could keep the population balanced without resorting to aborting a large portion of it... I just can't see why serious immigration enforcement isn't accepted as a better way to "sustain" our freedoms than robbing from the next generation.
Play by the rules, you get in. Break the rules and you lose. Including with contraception - meaning buy it, use it, or be willing to accept responsibility. It's obvious why losers are attracted to government that sustains them even when they break the rules.
But why do the Dems always seem to reward the losers who broke the rules?
Because those in power know they can be put to good use as voters, and winning now is really much more important than winning the future, contrary to their rhetoric. You sustain me and I'll sustain you. Sustainability!
WTF! |
